Late Rounds on Healthcare: Can Obama Throw a Counter-Punch?

The last time Americans celebrated this long holiday weekend - first convened in 1882 to publicly applaud "the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations" - Barack Obama was the Democratic nominee and trailing after a long, drifting summer that knocked his impressive, disciplined campaign off message and off kilter. Then September dawned, Lehman Brothers died, the swirl of the world economy began its grand flush, the electorate took a longer look at Sarah Palin, and John McCain opened his mouth to say the country's financial structures remained strong.

Obama counter-punched on the economy and didn't stop hitting till McCain was on TV thanking his supporters and (rather deliciously, from a spectator's view) freezing out Palin.

In truth, that's mainly who Obama is as a politician: a man who sees an opening, who doesn't panic against the ropes, who occasionally works the clock. Writers who resort to boxing metaphors should spend a term of no less than a year in re-education camps, but I'll risk it just this once and date myself at the same time: the President's always been more Ali than Frazier, a synthetic blend of talent and tactics.

Come Wednesday night and the Confab on Capitol Hill, Obama attempts to shift away from the ropes on healthcare reform and go on the offensive once again - really, the first time he's attempted this pivot since coming to power. The odds aren't great: last year, he was allowed six months between turning to embrace the half of the Democratic Party that fought for Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the electorate. This time, he has to fire the combo in rapid succession.

And he doesn't exactly have the collective wisdom on Angelo Dundee in his party's corner, either. Let's listen in on Howard Cosell, uh, that is to say, James Wolcott:

There are times when Democrats remind me of the episode of Seinfeld where, after a slapstick chain of mishaps, Kramer finds himself pinned against the wall like a soldier about to be executed as a tennis-ball machine bops one ball after another off of his head, until he groggily collapses and slides out of frame. The history and velocity and modus operandi of conservative attacks on elected Democrats are out there in the screaming daylight open and yet time and again they find themselves in a passive, stationary, unprepared position, getting pounded into mush, going down in - well, it's too early and wimpy to talk about defeat. But stale defeatism is definitely loose in the air.

To borrow a word Democrats generally shrink from - the word that launched Ted Kennedy's 1980 campaign - there is general malaise settling over town these days, a kind of wimpy (to borrow Wolcott's invective) deflation in expectations from Democratic Washington, beginning with the White House. At Obama's urging, thousands of Facebook users posted this as their status last week:

No one should die because they cannot afford healthcare. No one should go broke because they get sick, and no one should be tied to a job because of pre-existing condition. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

What's remarkable isn't the clarity of the language, or the fact that it became so instantly widespread. No, what's remarkable is that it comes so late in the game. If the White House - and its obsession with avoiding the mistakes of '93-94 - was really on the kind of A-plus game plan that defeated Clinton and McCain, this message mastery would have been in evidence during the over-hyped "first 100 days." Or even the second. Or even during the summer. But as I wrote a month ago, the Democrats surrendered the narrative to the opposition - the canny, strategic, money-wielding insurance lobby and the crazy, throw any insanity against the wall right wing.

For an issues that's supposed to represent the Administration's top domestic initiative, the slow and seemingly ad hoc nature of Obama's healthcare plan has been painful to watch unfold. For a politician renowned for "organizing the Presidency," it has all been spectacularly disorganized. And, frankly, unorganized - at least so far. At TechPresident, Colin Delaney voices the tactical despair many Democrats now feel, after watching (and taking part in) Obama's spectacular success last year:

The enemies may be somewhat different this time around, even if their tactics feel familiar, but the biggest gap is between Obama's grassroots politicking then and now.

The ability of the townhallers and death panelists to grab the attention of the media and chattering class caught many by surprise, but that kind of surprise didn't seem to matter so much to the Obamans a year ago. Remember Sarah Palin's VP nomination acceptance speech? The next day, Obama's fundraisers played their list like a musical instrument, ginning up more political donations in a 24-hour-period than anyone, ever.

By contrast, Obama for America has struggled to get into the health care debate in any meaningful way over the past few weeks. In that time, Obama has been punched from all sides -- from conservatives, of course, using both legitimate arguments and the made-up fantasies of the right-wing fringe, but also from the Left, as activists and bloggers try to hold his feet to the liberal fire.

The Organizer-in-Chief hasn't done much organizing, and the choir's getting smaller. And the lineup of bouts after healthcare isn't exactly the last bus from Palookaville either: Afghanistan, the employment crisis, a looming flu epidemic, market regulation. Well, Obama's turned things quickly before. And he's done it with major speeches. Sure, his kidneys must be aching from a thousand rabbit punches, but Wednesday night is clearly the start of the late rounds in the healthcare battle.

And here's the question: do we get a towel in the center of the bi-partisan ring - or some stinging counter-punches?

Follow Tom Watson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tomwatson

Comments

[873450]

This is reminiscent of Jimmy Carter refusing to leave the Rose Garden: "I'm too busy dealing with a hostage crisis to engage in petty politics." The strategy may have defeated Ted Kennedy, but it fractured the party and made him look weak. Attempting to deploy it against a happy faced Ron Reagan was a total disaster.

Thirty years later, it seems Democrats, including especially Barak Obama, can't conceive the half-century of unprecedented advancements in the quality-of-life for 95% of Americans were achieved without Reagan's wrong-headed, upside-down trickle-down, once mocked as "Voodoo Economics" by his future V.P., George Bush Sr., and later derided as an "illogical farce" by his budget expert, David Stockman.

Thirty years later, arrogant leadership and trickle-down Reagomics nearly destroyed international geopolitcs and the modern global economy. Now is the time for bold leadership to grasp the reigns and advance our great society up to the next higher level. Numerous avoidable and mishandled crisis present Obama with opportunities that come around only once or twice in a century. Compromise and half-measured incremental baby steps are simply unacceptable.

Hey Barak!

Lead!

That's why we put you there!

[ChelseaC]

HuffPost's Pick

Obama disorganized-- indeed.
I had attened an Obama For America meeting back in mid June. None of the members--including the host leader, knew how to get the word out about health care reform (oppps, sorry, it's now health INSURANCE reform). We were sent e-mails from OFA containing three principles on health care reform--no one knew what they meant specifically as these principles were so vague. We were told to just volunteer and not dicuss policy during the day of service.
To this day, none of the members I have stayed in contact with know what's going on.
What a waste--what a shame.
I've lost faith.

[Duke49]

Is it "Mission Accomplished" for Obama? Was his goal to just become President and now enjoy life with the insiders/c­orporatist­s? If so, we will see the white flag on Wednesday. Van Jones resigned under pressure for past comments about Republicans. Where was Obama's support for his "Grass-Roots" guy? Remember when the press was talking about Obama wanting to keep his Blackberry and stay in touch with common folks; what happened? His Cabinet appointments have reinforced the "Good Old Boys"/Wall Street/Big Corporations stranglehold on America. If President Obama does not fight for true health care on Wednesday we should be planning on a new third party for the 2010 elections (Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Arianna Huffington, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, George Lakoff, etc.).

[Jazzbeau]

Why do the Democrats, even with the White House and congress, get stomped by the Rethuglicans? Money! Billions poured into lobbying and campaigns. The problem is not that our government doesn't work but that it's for sale to the highest bidder, for whom it works exceedingly well.

As an Obama supporter, I haven't been this disappointed since LBJ took us into Vietnam. Maybe the President will find some backbone before his first term is over. We'll see on Wednesday. Otherwise he, like Johnson, will be elected only once. I wonder if President Palin will push health care reform? (rhetorical)

Obama's election slogan should have been "Yes we can, but we won't if it bothers the conservati­ves."

What we should be talking about is Medicare for all. Unfortunately that, like impeachment, investigating the politicizing of the Justice Department, torture, and the lies justifying the preemptive Iraq invasion, has been unilaterally taken off the table by Democratic cowardice. The next item to be meekly surrendered is the public option. Reform is lipstick on a pig without a public option; cosmetic change only.

A reform bill will be passed this congress that will contain a mandate but little reform. Then the thieves are handed 40 million involuntary new suckers, the President can claim 'victory,' and the HMOs, big pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies get exactly what they've bought and paid for.

Does anyone else find it ironic that one of the few Democrats with any backbone is the openly gay Barney Frank?

[JiminNC]

Gee, I remember the media obsessing on that exact question when he was facing HRC. As he showed then, he doesn't have to.

[bakbayray]

HuffPost's Pick

I have said many times that liberals are too nice. I first discovered this as I worked to help pass the CA Desert Protection Act. Everyone had signs outside the hearings attended by several thousand people. The pro-CDPA signs were positive and friendly and polite. Those against were using very nasty signs. When the hearings started, those speakers who were pro had to contend with lots of negative shouting (Does this remind anyone of the summer health care debates?) while the con-speakers were treated respectfully.
It appears that liberals have to fight fire with fire. As a former elected official, I soon learned to vote my conscience. Those who opposed me had lots of money to support an unknown candidate when I ran for reelection, so they won. But, at least I can live with myself, having done what I felt, with study, was the right thing. Obama needs to be more forthcoming, as he was during his campaign. This is what we voted for. There is risk, but, if successful, and I think it can be, the rewards are great. If there is too much compromise, then, what is the point of it?

[dadw5boys]

LOBBYIST SUPPORTERS ARE PULLING OUT !!!!!!

LOBBYIST ARE SCRED THEY WILL LOSE ON HEALTHCARE THE MONEY IS DRYING UP !!!!!!

Big Corporations are pulling back those millions lobbyist depend on !!!!!

STICK WITH MR. PRESIDENT YOUR BREAKING THEIR BANKS !!!!

Silly Republicans think they can buy everything and RUSH everything. Take your time Mr. President get it right. Make these fools spend every dime !

[ama2002]

CAUGHT OFF GUARD????????

It was more a hope than a reality, that we could reason, in a balanced way, through our distrust of government with a neophyte like Barack Obama.

We should have guessed from his inexperience, his absenteeism at votes in Illinois and his gift at changing course during the campaign, that we were about to elect an EQUIVOCATOR.

EQUIVOCATION is the worst characteristic of leadership. MEET Barack Obama. For unlike Reagan, who also held the middle ground, Obama does not have the Administration behind him to make up for his deficiencies.

[weatherwaxx]

And you signed on in July... another of the anti-Obama paid-by the post gang?

[873450]

Arms for Hostages

[diak0n0s]

Tell me that this isn't the best answer to this dilemma.

Give us all the private insurance plan that Congress has, or make them take what they are offering us.

[dadw5boys]

NO THEY SHOULD DO THEIR JOB IF IT TAKE 3 YEARS ~~~

[dadw5boys]

Sorry somehow posted to wrong comment .

[wildedge]

A government agency manages their insurance - and does so very well. The American people deserve the same.

[Alabama John]

Teach the people to eat healthy, put a steep tax on any processed food over 25% fat, and half the processed food and medical industries would go bankrupt.

Now the rich nobility who hire our politicians as paid actors, do you think their so stupid as to not know the relationship between diet, health and excessive wealth?

[diak0n0s]

I was with you on the unhealthy food tax, but what does the last sentence mean?

[Alabama John]

Are we so stupid as to not grasp the reality that those with excessive wealth sincerely and honestly believe that we are sucker-bait, gullible and stupid?

[Alabama John]

Actually were not stupid, just less intelligent, as it is the super intelligent rich who are the most stupid of all.

[EthylRosenberg]

Can he throw a counterpunch? He just did- Obama kicked it at the AFL-CIO. Rumors of his surrender on healthcare greatly exxagerated. The man I paid the big money to help elect is BACK. in full campaign mode.

[chumleypotts]

Today it was announced that he is going to tax those overgenerous "Cadillac" health care plans, primarily union membership, to help finance the pending bill. This would be a disastrous plan of action, to reward their support in this way is just unconscionable to many in organized labor.

[debqd]

Let's go for the quick counter-punches. Then, the knock-out.

[Gnosisquest]

Universal coverage is what we pay for and what we should get. Anything else will fail and we must inform the public.

We pay 1.45% in taxes for medical which we receive after 65. We pay for the socialized medicine of Government employees, military and veterans as well as those too poor to buy insurance. Countries where universal health care is available cost about 2% of their earnings.

Get it? We already pay for universal coverage; it is the $8 – 16K a year which comes out of our paycheck which goes to insurance executives and Wall Street tycoons which is excessive. Falling for the insurance/right wing propaganda is unbelievable; we already pay but get nothing and want to keep it that way. The system is broken, the propaganda keep our minds broken it is time to understand that this sort of a situation is what we need a Government to protect us from and universal health care is the only solution.

The nut jobs falling for not having a large Government are also a part of the problem as that is also just a ploy by the corporations who do not want to answer for their actions!

[Alabama John]

Public option -- Is it a smoke screen?

Converting our excessive wealth capitalist government to one of equality, as in democracy, must be an organized and progressive hard push toward the liberal left. In short no overkill that kills any hope of success.

Comes not a realization that the public option would: (1) Lead to the total destruction of the health insurance industry. (2) Expose in a most embarrassing way the total failure of capitalist medicine to do anything but kill people and generate excessive wealth. (3) Expose all capitalist politicians as paid actors and destroy any hope of their reelection. (4) Create heaven on earth and a social democracy for ever more.

A sure path to failure and sucker bait if you ask me, just like single payer, just a smoke screen to keep us going down a blind alley so we never see the light. For our goal being honesty and good regulation that eliminates excessive profit, surely we have many proven models that Congress could support without their being forced to commit political suicide in the process.

Take the Sweden model, for it has a healthcare industry the same as ours with insurance companies running the show. But the big difference is their 100% oversight and good regulation that keeps profit to a bare minimum, limits CEO salaries below a million, prevents doctors from retiring with millions, and keeps unnecessary procedures off the operating table.

[socalgal38]

oh sure, let the government regulate the insurance company than another Bush or Reagan get back into office and get rid of regulation again. No Thanks! The insurance companies need to go away. I don't know anyone, in their right minds, who would trust an insurance company even with regulations. Paying fines doesn't seem to bother their bottom lines. The insurance companies have become the most corrupted companies in the UNITED STATES. Get rid of all of them.

[ChelseaC]

well said socalgal.

[STILJON]

No one should wait for anyone else, including president Obama, to aggressively sell people on what we will get from healthcare reform and the public option. We have forgotten how we confronted negative campaigning and won in 2008 by sticking to ideas and the results they will achieve. There is no argument about government interference when healthcare reform is designed to stop private insurance companies from continuing to get in between you and your doctor all in the name of profit and bankrupting us in the process. Healthcare reform achieves this by stopping denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions, ends the practice of cherry picking only healthy people and creates competition that will force private insurers to stop denying certain treatments in the interest of profit. There is no argument that healthcare reform will take away your choice, when the public option insures you will actually have a choice outside your only current option which is an expensive private insurance plan. We should directly address the concerns about a government takeover of health care by aggressively pointing out that the current proposals have specific stipulations on who qualifies for a public option that will actually protect the private insurance industry while creating competition that will reduce premiums, limit profit-based restrictions on care and reduce the number of uninsured and the burden of this cost on taxpayers.

[Alabama John]

Devil is in the details, and as health insurance companies keep 30% for profit and overhead, while a public option, like Medicare, keeps only 4% for overhead, if we get a public option which I doubt, to be competitive at the start the public option would have be either 26% more expensive or 26% less competitive.